Virtual Violence Reported to Have Lingering Effects

27
Video game violence and its potential effects on real life behavior have been subjects of much controversy in political and medical circles in recent years, frequently in the context of attempts to regulate or censor game content, but reliable research on the matter is often lacking. Today, findings from a new study conducted on the subject were presented at a meeting of the Radiological Society of North America. The study, led by Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis professor of radiology Vincent P. Mathews, M.D., concluded that playing violent video games results in a lingering inhibition of prefrontal brain activity corresponding to inhibition, concentration and self-control, with increased activity in the area of the brain corresponding to emotional arousal.

Forty-four adolescents were observed in the study, each of whom played either a violent game or a nonviolent game for 30 minutes. Medal of Honor: Frontline was designated as the violent game, while Need for Speed Underground was designated as the nonviolent game. Following the gameplay sessiosn, the brain activity of all participants was tracked with functional magnetical resonance imaging while the participants engaged in various tasks requiring concentration. The brain activity of the group assigned to Medal of Honor displayed the lingering affects, whereas those with Need for Speed did not. By choosing a fast paced and exciting game for the nonviolent category, the study attempted to distinguish between specific effects of virtual violence and more general effects of excitement.

"During tasks requiring concentration and processing of emotional stimuli, the adolescents who had played the violent video game showed distinct differences in brain activation than the adolescents who played an equally exciting and fun--but nonviolent--game," Dr. Mathews said. "Additional investigation of the reasons for and effects of this difference in brain functioning will be important targets for future study, but the current study showed that a difference between the groups does exist."

Today's study is likely to be used as ammunition in future political battles over video game legislation.

From The Chatty
  • reply
    November 28, 2006 2:27 PM

    44 some fing sample set, how is this science?

    • reply
      November 28, 2006 2:28 PM

      [deleted]

      • reply
        November 28, 2006 2:32 PM

        Are you sure you're not thinking of surveys? I don't know how practical it would be to do something like this with a thousand people.

        • reply
          November 28, 2006 2:41 PM

          Surveys really don't use thousands of people, either. It really depends on what you're trying to prove, and with what accuracy.

          Most surveys use maybe a thousand people, but even that's for fairly close (within around 3%) divisions. Studies with a much wider spread in projects results tend to use a sample sizes in the few hundreds.

        • reply
          November 28, 2006 4:59 PM

          There is a formula for calculating the required sample size for given levels of accuracy whenever you are not able to evaluate/poll all members of a population you are trying to assess.

          http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

          To keep this practical, lets just look at North America. According to this:

          http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2003/english/ch1/

          There are approximately 45 Million adolesents in North America.

          Plugging it all in we get a required sample size of 384.

          That is, in order to be 95% certain that the results are representative (within 10%) of the population under evaluation they shoud have studied at least 384 10-19 year olds.

          Now to Remo's point, this study wasn't a strait audit or poll. It used a test and control methodology to (attempt to) show the effect of violent games. Since their sample size was 44, I'm assuming that they split the test and control groups evenly (22 each). I'm not sure if this methodology has different sample size requirements, but I would question whether or not the 22 subjects studied are representative of their populations. Would they have gotten the same results if they subjects were put into opposite groups? Are the differences between the two groups real, etc.

          • reply
            November 28, 2006 5:21 PM

            There are different formulas for calculating sample sizes for different tests and assumptions. The one you linked assumes a normal distribution and is geared towars statistics along the lines of "X% of people think Y".

            There are different techniques and formulas used for scientific studies.

            • reply
              November 28, 2006 5:29 PM

              Just for reference:

              I've seen sample sizes as low as 15-20 (total) for determining if a certain treatment results in a significant increase in performance. You don't need large sample sizes for this stuff.

      • reply
        November 28, 2006 2:38 PM

        No they don't.

    • reply
      November 28, 2006 2:42 PM

      I believe you only actually need about 30 or so people for a proper sampling. It varies depending on the study, but right around 30 is sufficient. Normally..

      • reply
        November 28, 2006 2:50 PM

        It's also the law of diminishing returns, isn't it? More isn't necessarily better?

        I'm pretty sure you don't need 1,000 people to validate your data. Maybe 100... I know there's been some argument over this.

        • reply
          November 28, 2006 2:58 PM

          Pretty much, yeah...

          At a certain point the amount of information you're gaining from each additional data point isn't worth the extra cost. This actually happens pretty quickly under most assumptions...

      • reply
        November 28, 2006 3:02 PM

        if as a whole there is normal distribution, or a close enough approximation of for what they are trying to measure, then if you have a sample size of 30+ you don't have to have any extra correction for accuracy.

    • reply
      November 28, 2006 2:52 PM

      And adolescents only...

      • reply
        November 28, 2006 2:56 PM

        Who else would they test to determine the effect of violent video games on adolescents...? 80 year old men?

        • reply
          November 28, 2006 3:11 PM

          Hmmm... I suppose, but then it becomes a rather targeted "think of the children" kind of study. Adolescence is also a fairly wide age bracket - are we talking 13 year olds or 18 year olds here? A nice study that factors in all the ages from 10 to 40 would be better, as it would be good to see when emotional responses tail off...

          • reply
            November 28, 2006 3:15 PM

            No, it becomes a study that answers a very real and pertinent question in today's society. This is somewhat necessary for studies to be funded..

            Read the article, not just the summary. The study was targeting adolescents for this very reason.


          • reply
            November 28, 2006 3:19 PM

            The effect on 40 year olds isn't really something anybody is concerned about.

            • reply
              November 28, 2006 3:41 PM

              Fair call, but how about 20 year olds though? Where in the adolescence range (13-19) do the ESRB ratings kick in? Is it M17+ in the US?

Hello, Meet Lola